• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Subterranean parking expert witness Anaheim California concrete tilt-up expert witness Anaheim California office building expert witness Anaheim California multi family housing expert witness Anaheim California hospital construction expert witness Anaheim California institutional building expert witness Anaheim California low-income housing expert witness Anaheim California condominiums expert witness Anaheim California townhome construction expert witness Anaheim California housing expert witness Anaheim California structural steel construction expert witness Anaheim California parking structure expert witness Anaheim California condominium expert witness Anaheim California landscaping construction expert witness Anaheim California mid-rise construction expert witness Anaheim California tract home expert witness Anaheim California high-rise construction expert witness Anaheim California Medical building expert witness Anaheim California industrial building expert witness Anaheim California retail construction expert witness Anaheim California custom home expert witness Anaheim California custom homes expert witness Anaheim California
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Anaheim, California

    California Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: SB800 (codified as Civil Code §§895, et seq) is the most far-reaching, complex law regulating construction defect litigation, right to repair, warranty obligations and maintenance requirements transference in the country. In essence, to afford protection against frivolous lawsuits, builders shall do all the following:A homeowner is obligated to follow all reasonable maintenance obligations and schedules communicated in writing to the homeowner by the builder and product manufacturers, as well as commonly accepted maintenance practices. A failure by a homeowner to follow these obligations, schedules, and practices may subject the homeowner to the affirmative defenses.A builder, under the principles of comparative fault pertaining to affirmative defenses, may be excused, in whole or in part, from any obligation, damage, loss, or liability if the builder can demonstrate any of the following affirmative defenses in response to a claimed violation:

    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Anaheim California

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.

    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Building Industry Association Southern California - Desert Chapter
    Local # 0532
    77570 Springfield Ln Ste E
    Palm Desert, CA 92211

    Building Industry Association Southern California - Riverside County Chapter
    Local # 0532
    3891 11th St Ste 312
    Riverside, CA 92501

    Building Industry Association Southern California
    Local # 0532
    17744 Sky Park Circle Suite 170
    Irvine, CA 92614

    Building Industry Association Southern California - Orange County Chapter
    Local # 0532
    17744 Skypark Cir Ste 170
    Irvine, CA 92614

    Building Industry Association Southern California - Baldy View Chapter
    Local # 0532
    8711 Monroe Ct Ste B
    Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730

    Building Industry Association Southern California - LA/Ventura Chapter
    Local # 0532
    28460 Ave Stanford Ste 240
    Santa Clarita, CA 91355

    Building Industry Association Southern California - Building Industry Association of S Ca Antelope Valley
    Local # 0532
    44404 16th St W Suite 107
    Lancaster, CA 93535

    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Anaheim California

    Nashville Stadium Bond Deal Tests Future of Spectator Sports

    Ivanhoe Cambridge Plans Toronto Office Towers, Terminal

    Construction Defect Reform Bill Passes Colorado Senate

    Bad Faith Claim for Investigation Fails

    Rattlesnake Bite Triggers Potential Liability for Walmart

    Soldiers Turn Brickies as U.K. Homebuilders Seek Workers

    AB5 Construction Exemption - A Checklist to Avoid Application of AB5's Three-Part Test

    Another Colorado City Passes Construction Defects Ordinance

    Protect Against Design Errors With Owners Protective Professional Indemnity Coverage

    Home Sales Going to Investors in Daytona Beach Area

    Nevada Budget Remains at Impasse over Construction Defect Law

    Las Vegas Student Housing Developer Will Name Replacement Contractor

    Two New Developments in Sanatoga, Pennsylvania

    Withholding Payment or Having Your Payment Withheld Due to Disputes on Other Projects: Know Your Rights to Offset

    A “Supplier to a Supplier” on a California Construction Project Sometimes Does Have a Right to a Mechanics Lien, Stop Payment Notice or Payment Bond Claim

    Google’s Floating Mystery Boxes Solved?

    Three Attorneys Named Among The Best Lawyers in America 2018

    San Francisco Sues Over Sinking Millennium Tower

    Georgia Amends Anti-Indemnity Statute

    Colorado Adopts Twombly-Iqbal “Plausibility” Standard

    Condo Owners Allege Construction Defects at Trump Towers

    Pending Sales of Existing Homes in U.S. Decline for Eighth Month

    Contractor Removed from Site for Lack of Insurance

    Endorsements Do Not Exclude Coverage for Wrongful Death Claim

    Construction Law Alert: Concrete Supplier Botches Concrete Mix, Gets Thrashed By Court of Appeal for Trying to Blame Third Party

    #3 CDJ Topic: Underwriters of Interest Subscribing to Policy No. A15274001 v. ProBuilders Specialty Ins. Co., Case No. D066615

    Legislative Update on Bills of Note (Updated Post-Adjournment)

    California Supreme Court Addresses “Good Faith” Construction Disputes Under Prompt Payment Laws

    Deducting 2018 Real Property Taxes Prepaid in 2017 Comes with Caveats

    A Lot of Cheap Housing Is About to Get Very Expensive

    Allegations that Carrier Failed to Adequately Investigate Survive Demurrer

    Beyond the Disneyland Resort: Dining

    Payment Bond Claim Notice Requires More than Mailing

    Reports of the Death of SB800 are Greatly Exaggerated – The Court of Appeal Revives Mandatory SB800 Procedures

    The Utility of Arbitration Agreements in the Construction Industry

    The Road to Rio 2016: Zika, Super Bacteria, and Construction Delays. Sounds Like Everything is Going as Planned

    Couple Perseveres to Build Green

    The Simple Reason Millennials Aren't Moving Out Of Their Parents' Homes: They're Crushed By Debt

    Think Twice About Depreciating Repair Costs in Our State, says the Tennessee Supreme Court

    BHA has a Nice Swing Donates to CDCCF

    Arizona Court of Appeals Upholds Judgment on behalf of Homeowners against Del Webb Communities for Homes Riddled with Construction Defects

    Damages to Property That is Not the Insured's Work Product Are Covered

    Federal Court Strikes Down 'Persuader' Rule

    Solicitor General’s Views to Supreme Court on Two Circuit Court Rulings that Groundwater Can be Considered “Waters of the United States”

    Noteworthy Construction Defect Cases for 1st Qtr 2014

    “But I didn’t know what I was signing….”

    San Francisco House that Collapsed Not Built to Plan

    The Overlooked Nevada Rule In an Arena Project Lawsuit

    Can You Really Be Liable For a Product You Didn’t Make? In New Jersey, the Answer is Yes

    Insurer Must Pay Portions of Arbitration Award Related to Faulty Workmanship
    Corporate Profile


    Through more than 4500 building and claims related expert witness designations, the Anaheim, California Construction Expert Directory provides a streamlined multi-disciplinary expert retention and support solution to developers, risk managers, and construction claims professionals concerned with construction defect, scheduling, and delay claims. BHA provides construction claims investigation and expert services to the building industry's most recognized companies, Fortune 500 builders, CGL carriers, risk managers, and a variety of municipalities. Employing in house assets which comprise construction delay claims experts, registered design professionals, professional engineers, and credentailed construction consultants, the firm brings regional experience and flexible capabilities to the Anaheim construction industry.

    Anaheim California consulting engineersAnaheim California hospital construction expert witnessAnaheim California building expertAnaheim California engineering consultantAnaheim California multi family design expert witnessAnaheim California engineering expert witnessAnaheim California construction defect expert witness
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Anaheim, California

    Mitigating FCRA Risk Through Insurance

    November 30, 2020 —
    As reported in a recent Hunton Andrews Kurth client alert, Mitigating FCRA Risks in the COVID-19 World (Oct. 23, 2020), consumer litigation claims related to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) doubled in the years leading up to the COVID-19 pandemic. After a slight decrease in FCRA filings due to court closures and other COVID-19 restrictions, claims will likely resume their previous upward trajectory. In fact, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has already seen an uptick in consumer complaints, many of which mention COVID-19 specific keywords. Given the anticipated rise in FCRA complaints, the alert highlights the need for financial institutions and financial services companies to develop FCRA-compliant policies and procedures, including training on those policies and procedures, to mitigate the risk of FCRA-related enforcement actions and litigation claims, particularly in light of the regulatory changes relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. Another important risk mitigation tool to consider is insurance, which can offer protection when even the most robust preventative measures fail to prevent an FCRA claim. Coverage for FCRA-related claims—often from directors’ and officers’ (D&O) or errors and omissions (E&O) policies—might be broader than one would initially expect. Policies may cover defense costs involving legal fees, as well as indemnification for damages. Reprinted courtesy of Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Matt Revis, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at Mr. Fehling may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    A Court-Side Seat: Appeals and Agency Developments at the Close of 2020

    December 29, 2020 —
    THE FEDERAL APPELLATE COURTS The U.S. Court of Appeals On November 23, 2020, the court, in a 2-to-1 vote, rejected the plaintiff’s request for an emergency injunction pending appeal in the case of Manzanita Band of Kumeyaay Nation, et al. v. Wolf. The majority held the requirement for such relief did not meet the requirements set forth in Winter v. NRDC, 555 US 7 (2008). Here, the plaintiffs allege that that the government’s construction of a border wall violates several environmental laws that were illegally waived by the Secretary of the Interior. Judge Millett dissented in part because the plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. She pointed to the argument that the authority of the Secretary—or Acting Secretary—to take these actions has been successfully challenged in several federal district courts. An expedited pleading schedule was established by the court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit On November 17, 2020, in Ergon-West ,Inc. v. EPA, the court again reversed the EPA’s decision denying regulatory relief to a small refinery seeking a waiver of the renewable fuels mandate of the Clean Air Act. Ergon is a small refinery and requested relief in the basis of the economic harm that compliance would entail. In 2018, the court ruled in Ergon’s favor and remanded the case back to the agency. After relief was again denied, the court held that “Ergon has come forward with sufficient evidence undermining one aspect” of the agency’s latest decision, and the ruling was returned to EPA for additional analysis. It appears that a complicated process has become even more complicated. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at

    Transportation Officials Make the Best of a Bumpy 2020

    January 18, 2021 —
    The year 2020 provided a bumpy budgetary ride for all modes of transportation, and some industry insiders don’t expect airport and transit ridership to return to pre-pandemic levels for years. Agencies are taking lessons learned, coupled with hopes for the new Biden administration, to carry on as best they can. Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record and Aileen Cho, Engineering News-Record Ms. Cho may be contacted at Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Sixth Circuit Affirms Liability Insurer's Broad Duty to Defend and Binds Insurer to Judgment Against Landlord

    September 07, 2020 —
    In a victory for policyholders, the Sixth Circuit affirmed that a landlord’s insurer owed a duty to defend the landlord in a bodily injury claim arising out of a fire that killed three and injured one. The Court held that the insurer breached its duty to defend and was bound to the insured’s $3 million consented judgment. Transition Investments LLC, an owner of three properties in the Detroit area, purchased a general liability insurance policy with Hamilton Specialty Insurance Company to insure its properties. At one of the properties, a faulty stove started a fire, destroying the building, injuring one person and killing three others. The estates of the deceased and the injured party sued Transition in Michigan state court. In their complaint, the plaintiffs contended that Transition failed to provide a habitable premise and neglected to maintain the property’s stove, which allegedly caused the fire. The plaintiffs argued that Transition’s negligent maintenance of the property led to the fire and the resulting injuries. Transition subsequently tendered the claim to Hamilton. Hamilton claimed that the insurance policy did not cover the fire’s damages and refused to participate in the state court litigation. Ultimately, Transitions entered into a consent judgment with the plaintiffs for $3 million. Reprinted courtesy of Michael V. Pepe, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and Janie Reilly Eddy, Saxe Doernberger & Vita Mr. Pepe may be contacted at Ms. Eddy may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Drone Operation in a Construction Zone

    August 17, 2020 —
    The potential uses of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in the construction industry continue to expand as new technologies enter the market and construction companies realize UAS can perform unique tasks at tremendous cost savings. The full technological capabilities of UAS are, however, limited by law for public safety reasons. UAS share airspace with traditional passenger, military and cargo aircraft, and are potential hazards for humans below. The risk of potential catastrophic collisions has led to a careful approach to the adoption of this technology. All U.S. airspace is exclusively regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and therefore, most drone regulation originates from this agency. Many states and localities have also enacted additional limits on UAS operations, and many of these nonfederal regulations are presently on unsure footing after a federal court ruling in Singer v. Newton invalidated a local regulation that conflicted with FAA regulations. What is clear is that all commercial UAS operations must comply with FAA regulations. Any drone operation conducted by any private company, even through use of an employee’s personal drone, would constitute commercial operation subject to regulation. Reprinted courtesy of Mark R. Berry, Peckar & Abramson and Freddy X. Muñoz, Peckar & Abramson Mr. Berry may be contacted at Mr. Muñoz may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Courts Are Ordering Remote Depositions as the COVID-19 Pandemic Continues

    August 10, 2020 —
    The COVID-19 pandemic has generally put a stop to in-person depositions nationwide. Many litigants and their attorneys have also resisted attempts to proceed with remote video depositions, some holding out for the pandemic to subside and for the return of in-person business as usual while others are resistant to using new or unfamiliar virtual video technology. However, with COVID-19 cases still increasing nationwide, courts are beginning to mandate that depositions proceed remotely regardless of these apprehensions. It looks like remote video depositions may become part of a new set of best practices and perhaps mandatory in some circumstances for the foreseeable future. The Supreme Court of New Jersey, for example, has ordered that “[t]o the extent practicable . . . depositions should continue to be conducted remotely using necessary and available video technology.” The court has not explicitly mandated remote depositions, but has certainly encouraged trial courts to do so, indicating in orders litigants are “strongly encouraged” to depose witnesses remotely. Other jurisdictions, such as Philadelphia’s First Judicial District, have given trial court’s similar authority and flexibility. Recently, a trial court in Middlesex County, New Jersey granted a motion to compel a defense deposition of the plaintiff to proceed remotely, if not in person, over the objection of plaintiff’s counsel in a slip-and-fall case. This is one of the first such rulings in this area. The plaintiff’s counsel objected to the remote deposition on the grounds that his client was elderly with a heavy accent, had no technology knowledge, and had no internet access. That would seem to be a pretty good argument that a remote deposition would be impracticable. However, the defendant bolstered their case with an offer to cover the cost of renting and delivering a remote deposition technology package to the plaintiff, complete with a tablet, phone, speaker, internet hotspot and remote training beforehand. Although the trial court acknowledged the plaintiff’s “significant hardship,” the court ordered that the deposition proceed remotely if not in person. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams attorneys Robert Devine, Douglas Weck and Victor Zarrilli Mr. Devine may be contacted at Mr. Weck may be contacted at Mr. Zarrilli may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Michigan Finds Coverage for Subcontractor's Faulty Work

    August 24, 2020 —
    The Michigan Supreme Court held that under a CGL policy, an "accident" may include unintentional subcontractor work that damages the insured's work product. Skanska USA Building Inc. v. M.A.P. Mechanical Contractors, Inc., et al., 2020 Mich. LEXIS 1194 (Mich. June 29, 2020). Skanska USA Building Inc. was the construction manager on a renovation project for a medical centre. The heatng and cooling portion of the project was subcontracted to M.A.P. Mechanical Contractors, Inc. (MAP). MAP installed a steam builder and piping for the heating system. The installation included several expansion joints. After completion, Skanska learned that MAP had installed some of the expansion joints backward. This caused significant damage to concrete, steel and the heating system. The medical center sent a demand letter to Skanska, who send a demand letter to MAP. Skanska did the repairs and replacement of the damaged property. Skanska then submitted a claim of $1.4 million for its work to Amerisure Insurance Company. The claim was denied. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at

    If You Don’t Like the PPP Now, Wait a Few Minutes…Major Changes to PPP Loan Program as Congress Passes Payroll Protection Program Flexibility Act

    July 27, 2020 —
    On June 5, 2020, President Trump signed into law the Payroll Protection Program Flexibility Act of 2020 (the Flexibility Act). The Flexibility Act provides much-needed flexibility for the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and its millions of business participants. The PPP offers loans to small businesses that have been adversely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and the measures taken by various governmental authorities to stem the spread of the virus so that they could keep their employees on the payroll during an eight-week period after receiving the funds. The PPP was particularly alluring to borrowers because the loans could be forgiven. But as the duration of lockdown orders and the accompanying economic aftershocks have extended longer than initially anticipated, particularly in those sectors that depend on in-person business such as restaurants, hospitality and other “main street” retail establishments, many recipients of PPP loans have found it challenging to use the PPP funds for payroll and other authorized purposes within the eight-week period after they had received the PPP funds, as is necessary to preserve eligibility for forgiveness. The Flexibility Act makes several key changes to the PPP program in order to allow borrowers who need a longer re-opening runway to do so without jeopardizing their ability to qualify for loan forgiveness. This alert outlines the key changes to the PPP made by the Flexibility Act. Reprinted courtesy of Ryan J. Udell, White and Williams LLP and Adam J. Chelminiak, White and Williams LLP Mr. Udell may be contacted at Mr. Chelminiak may be contacted at; Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of